Al-Zaghari v. Probate Court of the State of California et al
Filing
4
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/12/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
7
8
EVA AL-ZAGHARI,
No. C 11-80285 MISC RS
9
Petitioner,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT
11
12
PROBATE COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
13
14
Respondents.
____________________________________/
15
16
By order of August 15, 2001, in Ali Al-Zaghari, et al. v. Reja Al-Zaghari, et al., No. C 01-
17
2870, this Court designated petitioner a vexatious litigation. Petitioner is thus required to obtain
18
leave of court before filing a new complaint. The order states petitioner may not file any complaint,
19
petition, or other papers related to the mistreatment of herself, her daughter, or her mother by state
20
officials. Despite this order, petitioner has since attempted to file numerous related actions in this
21
court, including the most recent petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging government officials
22
mistreated herself and her family members. The Court conducted a pre-filing review of petitioner’s
23
writ and determined she had not met her burden of asserting cognizable legal claims or establishing
24
that she is in fact currently in custody for purposes of asserting a habeas claim. Petitioner now seeks
25
relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60.
26
A motion for relief from judgment brought pursuant to FRCP 60(b) is an extraordinary form
27
of relief which may only be granted upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v.
28
Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994). This remedy is to be used sparingly “to
NO. C
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
prevent manifest injustice.” Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Under FRCP
60(b), a court may grant such a remedy if the movant demonstrates, among other things: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; or (3)
misconduct by the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Here, petitioner has failed to demonstrate mistake, present new evidence, or establish
misconduct by respondents. In fact, her motion largely repeats the facts and allegations of her
previous filings. Accordingly, her motion for relief from judgment is denied.
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated: 6/12/12
14
15
16
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C
ORDER
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?